Comments: Bill Landis

II.C. Can we develop a process ...

  1. It seems to me that there are some requests for review/comments that TSDS must comment on (possibly things that fall into categories 1-4 in Rob Spindler's matrix, assuming this works as a way of categorizing the kinds of requests TSDS gets?). In these cases no group decision is needed. For things that fall into categories 5-6, when something is proposed to TSDS maybe there should be a majority-rules vote on whether or not to tackle it or decline? If a formal request is submitted and TSDS members decline it, the chair would be responsible for responding to whoever sent the request. Something like this might at least insure buy in by at least a simple majority of TSDS members for unofficial/informal reviews undertaken by the subcommittee.
  2. We need a process that will allow us to undertake a review and get comments out in roughly 2-4 weeks.
  3. Part of designing a more streamlined process with a tighter turnaround, IMHO, is spreading the responsibility for coordinating reviews and comments among all subcommittee members. This ought to alleviate the burden that repeatedly seems to fall on just a couple of people, which is often the cause of delays in getting comments out in a timely manner to those who have requested them.
  4. Having a process that explicitly lays out expectations of how TSDS responsibilities will be divided among subcommittee members ought to let new TSDS members know what they're getting in to and also help alleviate fears that carrying out TSDS responsibilities will be an all-consuming task for any individual.
  5. With the 6 TSDS members and, if they're interested, the ex officio members, it seems to me that we have enough people power to specify two people to coordinate & be primary point people for each review we undertake. This shouldn't unduly burden any individuals in the TSDS membership. It also seems like it might be a better way to facilitate discussion on a listserv or some other communications venue to draw out others' concerns and opinions. This would also ensure some minimal amount of diversity of opinion in TSDS comments.
  6. Some explicit review planning/coordination process seems like it will go a long way toward making sure that duplication of effort doesn't happen unless it is for something really important for which we want to expend the extra effort of having both memberships participate in a review.
  7. I'm still unclear about when and if we ever really need a formal TSDS vote to send off a review? Rob's matrix ought to help us clarify if and when a vote is required. This matrix would also help us to pigeonhole each review in a way that makes it clear what we have to do in order to discharge our responsibilities as TSDS members.